Talk:Breach
Shadow shield listed twice Shadow Shield is on the list twice. One of them is in error. My guess would be the secound time as this spell gets breached fairly early but will have to test it to be sure. DaBear 06:44, 16 Nov 2005 (PST) * Well I would say that its a error too. Second Shadow Shield been removed from list. -- Pstarky 05:09, 16 Nov 2005 (PST) * I blame BioWare. It was listed twice, because the script (nw_i0_spells) lists it twice.-- Austicke 16:55, 16 Nov 2005 (PST) :* Blame BioWare? Nah it is just par for the coarse. :-) DaBear 05:50, 17 Nov 2005 (PST) Unbreachable? This list is really long, but there are a number of similar magical defense spells not listed. I was wondering if it's worth mentioning that these spells, while dispellable, would seem to be unbreachable? The spells (that I've found) are: barkskin, clarity, death ward, displacement, entropic shield, etherealness, freedom of movement, haste, improved invisibility, invisibility, invisibility sphere, magic circle against alignment, mass haste, protection from alignment, and undeath's eternal foe. Just an idea, in case someone wants to focus on unbreachable spells, and would rather not go through the whole list and find them by process of elimination. -Zenobia 10:59, 6 July 2006 (PDT) * Nice list. It couldn't hurt to put it in a note. -- Alec Usticke 11:13, 6 July 2006 (PDT) :* Done. -Zenobia 11:40, 6 July 2006 (PDT) Which is first? Just wanting to understand this list. Is #1 the first or last spell breached? Grom56 04:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC) *The first in the list is the first defense breached. --The Krit 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC) Stoneskin series If you have greater stoneskin, premonition and lesser spell mantle up and someone hits you with quicken lesser spell breach will it strip the lesser spell mantle? Similarly, if you have greater stoneskin shadow shield and lesser spell mantle up and someone hits you with quicken lesser spell breach will it strip the lesser spell mantle? Thanks 13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) * Lesser spell breach strips up to 2 spells. Since greater stoneskin, premonition, and shadow shield are all listed before lesser spell mantle in the breach list, the breach will not remove the mantle in either of these examples. (By the way, quickening the breach has no effect on what the spell does, only on how long it takes to cast.) --The Krit 21:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Caster types & breaching would it be useful to note what the specific caster type is for each of these spells i.e. spell mantle (mage)? spell resistance (cleric)? the main reason for doing so is to make it easier to figure out which spells are getting breached & in which order when the breach is cast against a cleric say as opposed to a mage. willing to do the update if y'all think it's worth the while. Mysticjester 01:04, January 4, 2011 (UTC) * I just would not want the list to get too cluttered, especially for the spells that are both arcane and divine. Maybe "(BCDPRSW)" next to the spell names with a note explaining the abbreviations at the top or bottom of the list (instead of "(bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, wizard)" next to spell names)? Even if it turns out that each spell can only be cast by one class (if I can count sorcerer/wizard as "one" here), abbreviations might be less distracting from the main purpose of the list. : As for being useful, I don't think I personally would find it useful, as I would be checking this list after the fact -- as in, some mage foiled me with elemental shield, and it looked like he also had X, Y, and Z active; would a lesser breach have been enough to kill the elemental shield? :) --The Krit 15:09, January 26, 2011 (UTC) Offense vs. defense True seeing has been added to the list of unbreachable defenses. While it cannot be breached, is it a defense? I see it as countering the defenses of invisibility, darkness, and stealth, making it offensive. The issue is murky because sometimes the best offense is a good defense, and vice versa. However, true sight is a way to target something, while stealth is a way to avoid being targeted, so I would consider true seeing to be on the offensive side of things. Should true seeing be removed from the list on the grounds that it is not a defense? If not, should see invisibility and ultravision be added because they also counter invisibility and darkness (respectively) and are not breachable? --The Krit 23:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC) * I see your point, though one could argue that True Seeing helps protect (though not immunize) one from sneak attacks. Of course, by that reasoning, one could argue that Clairaudience/clairvoyance should be listed as well... : It seems like the list of "defensive spells" should focus on spells with a direct effect that is directly defensive. That is, it increases some defensive stat such as saving throws, AC, damage resistance, etc. I agree that "sometime defense is best served by offense" is certainly true, and that it makes for a very (I'd say overly) broad category of defensive effects. E.g. it seems that reasoning might allow one to say that True Strike fits the bill, in that it (somewhat similar in effect to True Seeing) allows targeting of otherwise practically unhittable creatures. : A somewhat objective (though still imperfect) metric would be to include only spells that Bioware has classified in spells.2da in the same classes as breachable spells. Those classes are (after a quick glance) Beneficial Enhancement Single, Talent Beneficial Protection Self, Talent Beneficial Enhancement Single, and Talent Beneficial Enhancement AoE. The problem is that that's a pretty long list and it includes buffs like Cat's Grace and Endurance. I guess one could argue those are defensive spells because they grant better AC and saves (and one could even say that Bull's Strength grants better Discipline, which is defensive). But, having list of "exceptions" that is potentially eighty items long when the list of includes is only 32 items long is a good indication the wrong criterion is in play. : Of course, it's worth noting that some breachable spells aren't really defensive anyway, so "defensive" might not be a good criterion for the exceptions list. For example, many spell shield spells are actually offensive; i.e. they grant no direct defensive benefit (excepting Elemental Shield) and do harm to oponents. So, "defensive" might not be the right wording to use in the note (and may not be the most accurate term in the main description, either). Maybe the note should say something more like "Many spells that have effects beneficial to defense are not on the list and are therefore not breachable. Such spells include ...". : BTW, one way or the other, it seems that, no matter the critereon chosen for the exceptions list, Wounding Whispers should be on it. -MrZork 01:45, February 21, 2011 (UTC) * There seems to be a tendency in the list of breachable spells to directly protect from spells and physical attacks, with the damage shields thrown in on top. Let's see... there is spell resistance (the check), damage reduction, damage resistance, hiding/untargetable (sanctuary), damage shields, immunity to mind-affecting spells, saving throw bonuses, and AC bonuses. Plus negative energy protection, which gives both damage immunity and immunity to ability/level drain, and I'm not sure which is the reason it is on the list, maybe both. One could also argue for death immunity, spell school immunity, spell level immunity, specific spell immunity, damage immunity, and concealment, as some breachable spells offer these in addition to one of the above effects. (For "spell resistance (the check)", I am including things that are implemented as part of the spell resistance check. That is, globes and mantles are included because they only apply against spells that check spell resistance.) Does this seem like a comprehensive list? It is a good point that a huge list of exceptions would indicate bad criteria, so how big a list of exceptions would there be if we listed all non-breachable spells that provide one of the above effects? Or maybe all non-breachable spells that only provide the above effects? :For my own reference, I'm just going to list here the effects of breachable spells with a different organization. Not sure if this is useful, but it will be here if needed. :: General protection: hiding :: Spell protection: immunities (by school, level, or spell) and resistances (SR, mantles, globes) :: Attack protection: AC bonuses, concealment :: Spell mitigation: saving throw bonuses, effect immunities (death, mind, drain) :: Attack mitigation: damage reduction, damage resistance, damage immunity :: Attack deterrent: damage shields : Just some thoughts. I'll come back to this later. (And yes, I agree that wounding whispers should be listed.) --The Krit 03:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC) Roll? The breach will always work or there is some roll in dispelling protection spells? -- 16:24, 21 August 2011 * Die rolls are for dispels. Breaches always breach. --The Krit 23:59, August 21, 2011 (UTC)